Search

Background Hormonal therapies are commonly prescribed to patients with metastatic granulosa cell tumours (GCT), based on high response rates in small retrospective studies. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are reported to have high response rates and an accepted treatment option. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of an AI in recurrent/metastatic GCTs. Methods 41 patients with recurrent ER/PR + ve GCT received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 12 weeks, evaluated by RECIST1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), CBR duration, quality of life and toxicity. Results The CBR at 12 weeks in 38 evaluable patients was 78.9%, which included one (2.6%; 95% CI: 0.5–13.5%) partial response and 76.3% stable disease. Two additional patients without measurable disease were stable, based on inhibin. Median PFS was 8.6 m (95% CI 5.5–13.5 m). There were delayed responses observed after 12 weeks with a total of 4 pts. (10.5%; 95% CI 4.2%–24.1%) with a RECIST partial response; 23 (59%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. The adverse effects were predominantly low grade. Conclusions This is the first prospective trial of hormonal therapy in GCTs. Although there was a high CBR, the objective response rate to anastrozole was much lower than the pooled response rates of >70% to AIs reported in most retrospective series and case reports. PARAGON demonstrates the importance of prospective trials in rare cancers and the need to reconsider the role of AIs as single agents in GCTs.

Amplification or overexpression of the FGFR family of receptor tyrosine kinases occurs in a significant proportion of gastric cancers. Regorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor of angiogenic and oncogenic kinases, including FGFR, which showed activity in the randomized phase II INTEGRATE clinical trial in advanced gastric cancer. There are currently no biomarkers that predict response to this agent, and whether regorafenib is preferentially active in FGFR-driven cancers is unknown. Through screening 25 gastric cancer cell lines, we identified five cell lines that were exquisitely sensitive to regorafenib, four of which harbored amplification or overexpression of FGFR family members. These four cell lines were also sensitive to the FGFR-specific inhibitors, BGJ398, erdafitinib, and TAS-120. Regorafenib inhibited FGFR-driven MAPK signaling in these cell lines, and knockdown studies confirmed their dependence on specific FGFRs for proliferation. In the INTEGRATE trial cohort, amplification or overexpression of FGFRs 1–4 was detected in 8%–19% of cases, however, this was not associated with improved progression-free survival and no objective responses were observed in these cases. Further preclinical analyses revealed FGFR-driven gastric cancer cell lines rapidly reactivate MAPK/ERK signaling in response to FGFR inhibition, which may underlie the limited clinical response to regorafenib. Importantly, combination treatment with an FGFR and MEK inhibitor delayed MAPK/ERK reactivation and synergistically inhibited proliferation of FGFR-driven gastric cancer cell lines. These findings suggest that upfront combinatorial inhibition of FGFR and MEK may represent a more effective treatment strategy for FGFR-driven gastric cancers.

Trifluridine/tipiracil is available on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with, or not considered candidates for, fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapies, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents. This article reviews trifluridine/tipiracil clinical data and presents practical information on its use in the management of refractory mCRC in Australia. Whereas the primary mechanism of action of fluoropyrimidines such as fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine is enzyme inhibition of nucleotide synthesis, trifluridine/tipiracil primarily acts by incorporation into DNA, resulting in DNA dysfunction. Trifluridine/tipiracil has activity in patients with 5-FU-resistant tumors and can be considered in patients with prior intolerance or toxicity to 5-FU. In the pivotal phase III RECOURSE trial evaluating trifluridine/tipiracil in chemotherapy-refractory mCRC, efficacy benefits were observed across all a priori prognostic subgroups including those defined by age (≥65 and ≥75 years), geographical origin, primary tumor site or KRAS status. Trifluridine/tipiracil therapy benefits appropriately selected patients who have an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, with no more than mild hepatic impairment or mild-to-moderate renal impairment, and who are capable of adhering to oral therapy safely. Appropriate dosing, monitoring for adverse events and effective management of side effects are essential.

LBA294 Background: AGOC has limited options after second-line therapy. Regorafenib (Rego), an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) targeting angiogenic, stromal and oncogenic receptor TKs, prolonged progression free survival (PFS) versus placebo (PBO) across all regions/subgroups in the INTEGRATE phase 2 randomised trial (JCO 2016 43(23):2728-2735). INTEGRATE IIa was designed to examine if Rego improves overall survival (OS). Methods: Double-blind placebo-controlled phase 3 trial comparing Rego + best supportive care (BSC) vs PBO + BSC using 2:1 randomisation, stratified by tumour location (GO junction vs gastric), geographic region (Asia vs rest of world), prior VEGF inhibitors (Y/N). Eligibility criteria: histologically/cytologically confirmed AGOC, evaluable metastatic/locally advanced disease, failure/intolerance of ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy with a platinum agent + fluoropyrimidine. Primary objective: OS in the whole study population. OS among Asian sub-population is a key secondary objective. Target of at least 221 events from 250 patients provides 80% power to detect an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67. Pooled OS analysis incorporating INTEGRATE phase 2 data is also planned. Secondary endpoints include PFS, objective response rate, safety and quality of life. Results: 251 patients enrolled (Oct16 - Sep21) from 5 countries:157 from Asia (Korea, Taiwan, Japan);169 Rego and 82 PBO. After 238 events, median OS (in months) for Rego vs PBO was 4.5 vs 4.0 (HR 0.70 [95%CI: 0.53 to 0.92]; p = 0.011) in the whole study population, with a 12 mo survival of 19% vs 6%. Median PFS was 1.8 v 1.6 (HR = 0.52; [95%CI: 0.40-0.69]; p = < .0001). After pre-planned adjustment for multiplicity, there were no statistically significant differences across regions (Asia versus non-Asia) or other pre-specified subgroups. Pooled analysis median OS was 5.0 v 4.1 (HR 0.69 [95% CI:0.56 to 0.87]; p = 0.001). Rego toxicity was similar to previously reported. Conclusions: Rego improves survival compared with PBO in advanced refractory AGOC, offering a new treatment option. This result creates a therapeutic platform for combination studies. INTEGRATE IIb is an ongoing international randomised Phase 3 trial in pre-treated patients with AGOC comparing Rego + nivolumab to standard chemotherapy (NCT0487936). Clinical trial information: NCT02773524 .

Background Among patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer, 80% have high-risk, borderline resectable or locally advanced cancer, with a 5-year overall survival of 12%. MASTERPLAN evaluates the safety and activity of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in addition to chemotherapy in these patients. Methods and design MASTERPLAN is a multi-centre randomised phase II trial of 120 patients with histologically confirmed potentially operable pancreatic cancer (POPC) or inoperable pancreatic cancer (IPC). POPC includes patients with borderline resectable or high-risk tumours; IPC is defined as locally advanced or medically inoperable pancreatic cancer. Randomisation is 2:1 to chemotherapy + SBRT (investigational arm) or chemotherapy alone (control arm) by minimisation and stratified by patient cohort (POPC v IPC), planned induction chemotherapy and institution. Chemotherapy can have been commenced ≤28 days prior to randomisation. Both arms receive 6 × 2 weekly cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2 IV), irinotecan (150 mg/m2), 5-fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2 CIV), leucovorin (50 mg IV bolus)) plus SBRT in the investigational arm. Gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel is permitted for patients unsuitable for mFOLFIRINOX. SBRT is 40Gy in five fractions with planning quality assurance to occur in real time. Following initial chemotherapy ± SBRT, resectability will be evaluated. For resected patients, adjuvant chemotherapy is six cycles of mFOLFIRINOX. Where gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel was used initially, the adjuvant treatment is 12 weeks of gemcitabine and capecitabine or mFOLFIRINOX. Unresectable or medically inoperable patients with stable/responding disease will continue with a further six cycles of mFOLFIRINOX or three cycles of gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel, whatever was used initially. The primary endpoint is 12-month locoregional control. Secondary endpoints are safety, surgical morbidity and mortality, radiological response rates, progression-free survival, pathological response rates, surgical resection rates, R0 resection rate, quality of life, deterioration-free survival and overall survival. Tertiary/correlative objectives are radiological measures of nutrition and sarcopenia, and serial tissue, blood and microbiome samples to be assessed for associations between clinical endpoints and potential predictive/prognostic biomarkers. Interim analysis will review rates of locoregional recurrence, distant failure and death after 40 patients complete 12 months follow-up. Fifteen Australian and New Zealand sites will recruit over a 4-year period, with minimum follow-up period of 12 months. Discussion MASTERPLAN evaluates SBRT in both resectable and unresectable patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619000409178, 13/03/2019. Protocol version: 2.0, 19 May 2019

BACKGROUND Advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC) is a highly aggressive malignancy, with a 5-year overall survival of

Background Aromatase inhibitors have been used empirically to treat a subset of patients with hormone receptor positive uterine leiomyosarcomas(LMS) and carcinosarcomas (UCS) mainly supported by retrospective data. We evaluated the activity of anastrozole in two rare cohorts; patients with recurrent/metastatic LMS and UCS enrolled in PARAGON, a basket trial of anastrozole in estrogen receptor (ER+)/progesterone receptor positive (PR+) gynecological cancers. Method An investigator-initiated, single-arm, prospective open-label trial of anastrozole 1 mg/day in patients with ER &/or PR + ve LMS or UCS with measurable disease, treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit (complete/partial response + stable disease) rate (CBR) at 3 months. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life and toxicity. Results 39 eligible patients were enrolled, 32 with LMS and 7 with UCS. For the LMS cohort CBR at 3 months was 35% (95% CI: 21–53%) with a median duration of clinical benefit of 5.8 months. Best response was a partial response in one patient. Two patients remained on treatment for more than one year. The median progression-free survival was 2.8 months (95% CI: 2.6–4.9). For the UCS cohort CBR at 3 months was 43% (95% CI: 16–75%) with a median duration of clinical benefit of 5.6 months. Stable disease was seen in 3 patients but no objective responses were seen. The median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.1–8.2). Safety was acceptable with 5/39 evaluable patients showing grade 3 toxicities. Conclusion Whilst objective response rates with anastrozole are low, the clinical benefit rate and good tolerance suggests that aromatase inhibitor therapy may have a role in a subset of patients with metastatic LMS and UCS.

International collaboration in oncology trials has the potential to enhance clinical trial activity by expediting the recruitment of large patient populations, testing treatments in diverse populations and facilitating the study of rare tumours or specific molecular subtypes. However, a number of challenges continue to hinder the efficient and productive conduct of both commercial and non-commercial international clinical trials. These challenges include complex and burdensome regulatory requirements, the high cost of conducting trials, and logistical challenges associated with ethics review, drug supply and biospecimen collection and management. We propose solutions to promote oncology trial collaboration, such as regulatory reform, harmonisation of trial initiation and management processes and greater recognition and funding of academic (non-commercial) clinical trials. It is only through coordinated effort and leadership from researchers, regulators and those responsible for health systems that the full potential of international trial collaboration can be realised.

Background Worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival, based on simple multiples of an individual's expected survival time (EST), estimated by their oncologist, are a useful way of formulating and explaining prognosis. We aimed to determine the accuracy and prognostic significance of oncologists’ estimates of EST, and the accuracy of the resulting scenarios for survival time, in advanced gastric cancer. Materials and Methods Sixty-six oncologists estimated the EST at baseline for each of the 152 participants they enrolled in the INTEGRATE trial. We hypothesized that oncologists’ estimates of EST would be unbiased (∼50% would be longer or shorter than the observed survival time [OST]); imprecise ( Results Oncologists’ estimates of EST were unbiased (45% were shorter than the OST, 55% were longer); imprecise (29% were within 0.67–1.33 times observed); moderately discriminative (Harrell's C-statistic 0.62, p = .001); and an independently significant predictor of OS (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.83–0.95; p = .001) in a Cox model including performance status, number of metastatic sites, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≥3, treatment group, age, and health-related quality of life (EORTC-QLQC30 physical function score). Scenarios for survival time derived from oncologists’ estimates were remarkably accurate: 9% of patients died within a quarter of their EST, 57% lived within half to double their EST, and 12% lived three times their EST or longer. Conclusion Oncologists’ estimates of EST were unbiased, imprecise, moderately discriminative, and independently significant predictors of OS. Simple multiples of the EST accurately estimated worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival time in advanced gastric cancer. Implications for Practice Results of this study demonstrate that oncologists’ estimates of expected survival time for their patients with advanced gastric cancer were unbiased, imprecise, moderately discriminative, and independently significant predictors of overall survival. Simple multiples of the expected survival time accurately estimated worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival time in advanced gastric cancer.

4122 Background: CAPTEM is an accepted regimen for patients (pts) with advanced pNETs. Single agent PRRT is now a standard of care for progressive WHO Grade 1/2 mNETs. High activity was seen with PRRT/CAPTEM in a single arm Phase I/II trial. This study aims to determine the activity of combining CAPTEM with PRRT in mNETs and pNETs pts. Methods: Non-comparative randomised open label parallel group phase II trial with 2:1 randomisation to PRRT/CAPTEM (experimental arm) vs. PRRT (mNETs control) and CAPTEM (pNETS control). PRRT/CAPTEM: 7.8GBq 177Lu Octreotate (Lutate) given intravenously (IV) on day 10 every 8 weeks for 4 cycles, with concurrent oral capecitabine 750mg/m2 b.i.d. days 1-14 and temozolomide 75mg/m2 b.i.d. days 10-14 every 56 day cycle, up to 4 cycles. PRRT alone: 7.8GBq 177Lu Octreotate (Lutate) given intravenously (IV) on day 1 every 8 weeks for 4 cycles. CAPTEM alone: Oral capecitabine 750mg/m2 b.i.d. days 1-14 and days 29-42; Oral temozolomide 75mg/m2 b.i.d. days 10-14 and 38-42 every 56 day (8w) cycle. Primary endpoint: Progression free survival (PFS). mNETS: At 15 months, assuming PFS 66.4% in control arm; target PFS ³ 80%; pNETS: At 12 months, assuming PFS 60% in control arm; target PFS ³ 75%. Secondary endpoints: Objective tumor response rate (complete or partial) (OTRR), overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs). Results: 75 pts enrolled (Dec 2015 – Nov 2018): mNETs 33 PRRT/CAPTEM, 14 PRRT, median follow up (mFU) 60.3 months; pNETS 19 PRRT/CAPTEM, 9 CAPTEM, mFU 57.5 months (mo). Late Grade 3/4 haematologic AEs: mNETS: 2/32 (6%) PRRT/CAPTEM pts and 4/13 (31%) PRRT pts. Events included myelodysplastic syndrome (40 mo), leukaemia (60 mo), pancytopenia (50 mo), anaemia (32 mo), thrombocytopenia (7 mo). No late haematologic G3/4 AEs were reported in the pNETS cohort. No late renal toxicity was identified in all study arms. Conclusions: CONTROL NETs is the first randomized trial to demonstrate efficacy for PRRT in pNETs, in addition to a standard of care. Extended follow up confirms durable CAPTEM/PRRT activity, with superior PFS in pNETs. Late haematologic toxicity was seen in both mNET PRRT arms but was not higher with additional CAPTEM. The activity of CAPTEM/PRRT in pNETs should be tested in the phase III setting. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12615000909527. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND: The D-type cyclin and cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK) complex phosphorylates retinoblastoma protein, thereby driving cell cycle progression. This process is blocked by inhibitors of CDK4/6. As part of the Molecular Screening and Therapeutics program, this phase IIa trial tested the clinical activity of CDK4/6 inhibitor monotherapy in tumors with cell cycle pathway alterations.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients ≥ 18 years old, with advanced or metastatic solid cancers, along with amplification of CDK4/6, CCND1/2/3, or loss of function alterations in CDKN2A were recruited. The primary objective of this signal-seeking trial was to evaluate the clinical activity of palbociclib – a composite of objective responses and the ratio of time to progression (TTP) on palbociclib, to TTP on treatment preceding trial entry.RESULTS: Ten patients had CDK4/CDK6 or Cyclin D1 amplifications, six patients had CDKN2A deletions. After a median follow-up of 35 months, there were no objective responses. Seven patients had stable disease and one had non-complete response/non-progressive disease (non-CR/non-PD) based on evaluation of a non-target lesion. Two of these seven patients maintained stable disease for at least 6 months, as did the patient with non-CR/non-PD. Median PFS and OS were 3.5 and 11.0 months respectively. No unexpected toxicities were observed. Translational correlates yielded strategies for targeting cell cycle interactions with other molecular pathways and the immune system.CONCLUSION: Palbociclib monotherapy was not associated with any objective responses, but stable disease lasting at least 6 months was observed in 19% of patients. There was no clear relationship with alteration type or histotype. The signals of immune activation provide insights into the design of future trials, with a combination approach adding checkpoint blockade to CDK4/6 inhibition.

Palliative chemotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment for the majority of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, with the aim of increasing length and quality of life. Although guidelines outline the available treatment options in the first line, they provide limited guidance on choice and intensity of the chemotherapy backbone. Data from the TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies confirm a survival benefit with triplet FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab, and this is a preferred option for younger patients with good performance status able to tolerate it. However, the relative benefit of a fluoropyrimidine doublet with oxaliplatin or irinotecan over single-agent fluoropyrimidine with or without a biologic is less certain; the available data demonstrate that single-agent fluoropyrimidine plus a biologic with planned sequencing of subsequent agents can produce similar overall survival outcomes with reduced toxicity. Our analysis of local real-world registry data suggests that this is an underutilized approach, particularly in younger and fitter patients. Established prognostic factors, including patient age, performance status, tumor sidedness, and biomarkers such as RAS/BRAF, are key in treatment selection; patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type disease or patients with low tumor bulk may be ideal for a less intensive regimen. Further studies are required to confirm the value of less-intensive regimens in the modern era, where the incorporation of biologic therapies has become routine and where non-chemotherapy options are emerging as viable options for molecularly defined patient subsets.

Background The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the activity of intraperitoneal bevacizumab (IP-bev) in delaying re-accumulation of malignant ascites in women with chemotherapy-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (CR-EOC) who have ceased chemotherapy. Secondary outcomes were safety and quality of life. Methods Women with CR-EOC and malignant ascites that reaccumulated within 28 days of their last paracentesis (P-1) were administered IP-bev 5 mg/kg following their first therapeutic paracentesis on study (P0). Additional doses of IP-bev were allowed at each subsequent paracentesis (P1, P2, etc) provided the interval from the last dose was 42 days or greater (median time from first to second therapeutic ascitic drainage). Results 24 participants (median age 67 years [range 38–86]; median 4.5 lines prior systemic treatment [range 1–12]; ECOG performance status of 0 in 1, 1 in 8, and 2–3 in 15) were recruited. The doses of IP-bev administered were 1 in 13 participants, 2 in 5, 3 in 2, 4 in 1, and 5 in 1. The proportion with a TTP of >42 days using competing risk analysis was 77% (95% CI 58–92). Median time from P0 to P1 or death was 48 days (range 8–248). Median paracentesis-free interval (P0–P1 or death) was 4.29-fold (95% CI 2.4–5.8) higher following a first dose of IP-bev compared with the time between paracenteses prior to study entry (P-1–P0). Conclusion IP-bev was safe, active, and warrants further study as a palliative intervention for recurrent ascites in CR-EOC patients receiving best supportive care.

Gemcitabine/cisplatin is standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC); new treatments are needed. NUC-1031 is designed to overcome key cancer resistance mechanisms associated with gemcitabine. The tolerability/efficacy signal of NUC-1031/cisplatin in the Phase Ib ABC-08 study suggested that this combination may represent a more efficacious therapy than gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with aBTC, leading to initiation of the global NuTide:121 study which will include 828 patients ≥18 years with untreated histologically/cytologically-confirmed aBTC (including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder or ampullary cancer); randomized (1:1) to NUC-1031 (725 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2), on days 1/8, Q21-days. Primary objectives are overall survival and objective response rate. Secondary objectives: progression-free survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported quality of life and correlative studies. (Investigational new drug (IND) number: 139058, European Clinical Trials database: EudraCT Number 2019-001025-28, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04163900).

TPS366 Background: Advanced Gastro-oesophageal Carcinoma (AGOC) has a poor prognosis, and there is no established standard treatment following failure of first- and second-line chemotherapy. Regorafenib (BAY 73-4506) is an investigational oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) which targets angiogenic (VEGF, TIE-2), stromal (PDGF-β), and oncogenic (RAF, RET and KIT) receptor tyrosine kinases, and has shown activity in this setting. Single agent regorafenib prolonged progression free survival (PFS) versus placebo across all regions/subgroups in the INTEGRATE randomised phase 2 trial. Current options in refractory AOGC involves sequencing through chemotherapy with the latest active agent approved being trifluridine/tipiracil, TAS-102. Promising activity in refractory AOGC has been seen with the combination of regorafenib & nivolumab. INTEGRATE IIb–will compare the effectiveness of the combination of regorafenib & nivolumab in pre-treated patients with AGOC to current standard chemotherapy. Methods: Randomised phase III, open label study with 2:1 randomisation (RegoNivo : standard chemotherapy) and stratification by: Geographic region (Asia vs. Rest of World); Prior VEGF inhibitors (Yes vs No); Prior immunotherapy (Yes vs No). RegoNivo arm will receive 90mg (3x30mg) of regorafenib days 1-21 of each 28-day treatment cycle with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg day 1 of each 14 day cycle until disease progression or prohibitive adverse events as per protocol. The control arm will receive the investigator’s choice of the following chemotherapy; a taxane (paclitaxel or docetaxel), irinotecan or oral trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102). Primary endpoint: OS. Secondary endpoints: PFS, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, exploratory correlative biomarkers. Clinical trial information: NCT04879368.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit rate with aromatase inhibitors and the impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) in endometrial cancer is unclear. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of anastrozole in endometrial cancer. METHODS: Investigator initiated single-arm, open label trial of anastrozole, 1 mg/d in patients with ER and/or PR positive hormonal therapy naive metastatic endometrial cancer. Patients were treated until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was clinical benefit (response + stable disease) at 3 months. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life (QOL) and toxicity. RESULTS: Clinical benefit rate in 82 evaluable patients at 3 months was 44% (95% CI: 34-55%) with a best response by RECIST of partial response in 6 pts. (7%; 95% CI: 3-15%). The median PFS was 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.8-5.4). Median duration of clinical benefit was 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.0-13.7). Treatment was well tolerated. Patients who had clinical benefit at 3 months reported clinically significant improvements in several QOL domains compared to those with PD; this was evident by 2 months including improvements in: emotional functioning (39 vs 6%: p = 0.002), cognitive functioning (45 vs 19%: p = 0.021), fatigue (47 vs 19%: p = 0.015) and global health status (42 vs 9%: p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Although the objective response rate to anastrozole was relatively low, clinical benefit was observed in 44% of patients with ER/PR positive metastatic endometrial cancer and associated with an improvement in QOL. ispartof: GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY vol:154 issue:1 pages:29-37 ispartof: location:United States status: published

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options are limited for patients with recurrent/metastatic low-grade ovarian cancers (LGOCs) and serous borderline ovarian tumors (SBOTs) as response rates to chemotherapy are low. A subset of patients appears to derive clinical benefit from antiestrogens, but most studies have been retrospective and clinical benefit rates (CBR) remain uncertain. The primary aim of PARAGON was to prospectively investigate the CBR of anastrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) positive LGOC and SBOT. METHODS: Post-menopausal women with ER-positive and/or PR-positive recurrent/metastatic LGOCs and SBOTs and evaluable disease by RECIST v1.1 or GCIG CA125 criteria were treated with anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled. Clinical benefit at 3 months (primary endpoint) was observed in 23 patients (64%, 95% CI 48%-78%) and was similar at 6 months (61%, 95% CI 43%-75%). The median duration of clinical benefit was 9.5 months (95% CI 8.3-25.8). Best study response was partial response by RECIST in 5 patients (14%), stable disease in 18 patients (50%) with progressive disease in 13 patients (36%). Median PFS was 11.1 months (95% CI 3.2-11.9). Anastrozole was well-tolerated. Patients with evidence of clinical benefit at 3 months reported less pain, fatigue, and improved physical and role functioning as early as 1 month of commencing treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Anastrozole was associated with a CBR of 61% of patients with recurrent ER-positive and/or PR-positive LGOC or SBOT for at least 6 months with acceptable toxicity. ispartof: GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY vol:154 issue:3 pages:531-538 ispartof: location:United States status: published

TPS4172 Background: Eighty per cent of patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer have high-risk, borderline resectable (BRPC) or locally advanced pancreas cancer (LAPC), conferring a 5-year overall survival of only 12%. MASTERPLAN evaluates the safety and activity of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in these patient cohorts. Methods: MASTERPLAN is an investigator-initiated prospective multi-centre randomized phase II trial. Inclusion criteria include histologically confirmed high-risk, BRPC or LAPC. High risk is defined as tumour > 4cm, extrapancreatic extension or node positive. Randomisation is 2:1 to chemotherapy + SBRT (investigational arm) or chemotherapy (control arm) by minimisation with stratification by operability (potentially operable - high risk; BRPC versus inoperable – LAPC; medically inoperable), planned chemotherapy and institution. Both treatment arms receive 6 x 2 weekly cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX). Gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel is permitted if mFOLFIRINOX is unsuitable. The investigational arm receives SBRT (40Gy in 5 fractions) with real time quality assurance. Resectability will be evaluated following initial chemotherapy +/- SBRT. Adjuvant chemotherapy is 6 cycles (12 weeks) of mFOLFIRINOX, or the same duration of gemcitabine and capecitabine (GEMCAP) if neoadjuvant gemcitabine/ nab-paclitaxel given. SBRT adverse events (AEs) will be recorded until study cessation. The primary endpoint is 12-month locoregional control. Secondary endpoints: safety, surgical morbidity and mortality, radiological response rate, progression free survival, pathological response rate, surgical resection rate, R0 resection rate, quality of life, deterioration free survival and overall survival. Biospecimens are collected for translational research for potential prognostic/predictive biomarkers of clinical endpoints and include serial tumour tissue collection from patients undergoing fiducial marker insertion and/or surgery, biopsy at disease progression, serial blood collection and serial buccal and faecal sample collection. An interim analysis will review locoregional failure, distant metastasis and rate of death on the first 40 patients after completion of 12 months follow up. The sample size is 120 patients (80 intervention:40 control), balanced for BRPC/LAPC (60 in each cohort). The minimum follow up is 12 months. The first site opened in October 2019 and 10 patients have been recruited from five sites at 17 Feb 2021. Overall 15 sites in Australia and New Zealand are planned to open to recruitment. Australian Clinical Trials Registry Number: ACTRN12619000409178. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12619000409178.

TPS4164 Background: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is an aggressive disease with a poor prognosis. Gemcitabine + cisplatin (GemCis) is the accepted global standard of care (SoC), however key cancer resistance mechanisms associated with the transport, activation and breakdown of gemcitabine are known to limit its clinical activity across a range of tumor types, including BTC. NUC-1031 is a phosphoramidate transformation of gemcitabine designed to overcome these key resistance mechanisms and generate much higher levels of the active anti-cancer metabolite, dFdCTP, in cells. Promising efficacy has been observed with single-agent NUC-1031 in a phase I study in advanced solid tumors and in the phase Ib ABC-08 study of NUC-1031 + cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced BTC. Of 21 patients enrolled in 2 dose cohorts (NUC-1031 625 mg/m2 or 725 mg/m2 + cisplatin 25 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycle), 16 were considered to be efficacy evaluable. In this population, 1 patient had a CR and 6 patients had PRs, resulting in an ORR of 44% (7/16). This compares favorably to the 26% ORR reported for the SoC regimen. In addition, 6 patients had SD, resulting in a DCR of 81% (13/16). The combination was well tolerated with no unexpected AEs or DLTs. The recommended dose of NUC-1031 with cisplatin was 725 mg/m2. The tolerability profile, together with encouraging efficacy led to initiation of a global registrational study. Methods: NuTide:121 is a phase III, open-label, randomized study of NUC-1031 + cisplatin vs GemCis for first-line treatment of advanced BTC. Patients ≥18 years with histologically- or cytologically-confirmed BTC (including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder, or ampullary cancer), who have had no prior systemic chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease, are eligible. A total of 828 patients are being randomized (1:1) to either 725 mg/m2 NUC-1031 or 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine, both with 25 mg/m2 cisplatin, administered on Days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. Primary endpoints are OS and ORR. Secondary endpoints include PFS, safety, PK and patient-reported quality of life. In addition to the final analysis, three interim analyses are planned. The study has passed an initial safety analysis, with no protocol changes required. NuTide:121 is being conducted at approximately 130 sites across North America, Europe and Asia Pacific. Clinical trial information: NCT04163900.

3610 Background: Chronic lower grade adverse events (AE) can negatively affect a patient’s quality of life but it is difficult to capture using a traditional toxicity reporting approach. A novel AE reporting method was recently developed to describe, summarize, and present longitudinal AE profiles(Lopes et al, 2021). We leveraged this method to describe and compare the AE profiles of doublet chemotherapy (DC) + Cetuximab and DC alone in mCRC patients. Methods: This AE reporting method utilizes two additional AE metrics to complement the maximum (max) toxicity grade usually reported in clinical trials. Onset time indicates the time period in which max grade for an AE occurred for the first time, defined here as “early” (i.e. within first 42 days) and “late” (i.e. after the 42nd day). AE Load (AEL) indicates the overall severity of an AE in the entire treatment. AEL varies from 0 to 1. Higher AEL indicates a worse overall severity of that AE over time. AEL is the key metric for describing chronic AE. We included patients receiving DC + cetuximab (n = 738) and DC alone (n = 564 [ref group]) from two randomized first-line trials in the ARCAD database. Diarrhea, rash, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), fatigue, anorexia, and mucositis were examined and adjusted for backbone (FOLFOX vs. FOLFIRI), ECOG PS, sex, site location, dose reduction, and treatment length. Results: For rash, DC + cetuximab had a higher risk of G3+ (21% vs. 0.5%; odds ratio {OR} [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 50 [16,157], p < 0.001), increased overall severity over the entire treatment (AEL = 0.257 vs. 0.069; Adjusted difference in means–Mdiff [95% CI] = 0.22 [0.21,0.23], p < 0.001), and increased risk of early onset (67% vs. 33%; OR [95% CI] = 4.3 [2.7,6.7], p < 0.001). DC + cetuximab also had higher AEL for rash across max grades (p < 0.001 within G1, G2, and G3+). For HFS, DC + cetuximab had a higher risk of G3+ (OR [95% CI] = 6.0 [2.5,14], p < 0.001), increased overall severity (AEL = 0.139 vs. 0.087; Mdiff [95% CI] = 0.03 [0.03,0.04], p < 0.001), and slightly earlier onset (12.4 vs. 13.9 weeks; Mdiff, weeks [95% CI] = -4.9 [-0.80,-9.0], p = 0.021). Within each max grade, DC + cetuximab did not have higher AEL of HFS. No associations were found for diarrhea, fatigue, anorexia, or mucositis. Conclusions: The addition of cetuximab is associated with higher grade, more persistent, and more immediate rash. The higher severity in HFS with the addition of cetuximab appears to be related to higher grade but not chronic HFS. This method may be useful to describe different strategies, e.g. intermittent cetuximab. It provided a comprehensive view of acute and chronic toxicity profiles supporting its potential interest as new metrics in clinical trials. Lopes GS, Tournigand C, Olswold CL, et al. Adverse event load, onset, and maximum grade: A novel method of reporting adverse events in cancer clinical trials. Clinical Trials. 2021;18(1):51-60

TPS351 Background: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) carries a poor prognosis and no first-line treatments are approved. The accepted global standard of care is gemcitabine + cisplatin (GemCis). NUC-1031 is a phosphoramidate transformation of gemcitabine designed to overcome key cancer resistance mechanisms that are associated with gemcitabine. Promising efficacy has been observed with single-agent NUC-1031 in a phase I study in advanced solid tumors and in the phase Ib ABC-08 study of NUC-1031 + cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced BTC. Of 14 patients enrolled in 2 cohorts (NUC-1031 625 mg/m2 or 725 mg/m2 + cisplatin 25 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycle), 1 had a CR and 6 had PRs, resulting in an unconfirmed ORR of 50%. This represents an approximate doubling of ORR over SoC. The combination was well-tolerated with no unexpected AEs or DLTs. The RP2D of NUC-1031 with cisplatin was 725 mg/m2. The tolerability profile, together with encouraging efficacy, suggested NUC-1031 + cisplatin may represent a more effective therapy than GemCis for BTC and led to initiation of a global registrational study. Methods: NuTide:121 is a Phase III, open-label, randomized study of NUC-1031 + cisplatin vs GemCis for first-line treatment of advanced BTC. Patients ≥18 years with histologically- or cytologically-confirmed BTC (including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder, or ampullary cancer), who have had no prior systemic chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic disease, are eligible. A total of 828 patients are being randomized (1:1) to either 725 mg/m2 NUC-1031 or 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine, both with 25 mg/m2 cisplatin, administered on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles. Primary objectives are OS and ORR. Secondary objectives include PFS, safety, PK and patient-reported quality of life. In addition to the final analysis, three interim analyses, including two designed to support accelerated approval, are planned. The study has passed an initial safety analysis, with no protocol changes required. NuTide:121 is being conducted at approximately 130 sites across North America, Europe and Asia Pacific countries. Clinical trial information: NCT04163900.

Aim While first-line palliative chemotherapy (CT1) improves survival and quality of life in advanced biliary cancer (ABC), there is no randomized evidence to support second-line chemotherapy (CT2) in ABC. We aim to explore to role of CT2 in ABC. Methods We performed a retrospective review of all patients who received one or more lines of chemotherapy for ABC at four Australian cancer centers between 2008 and 2011. A Cox proportional hazard model was developed to determine the impact of clinicopathologic variables on overall survival (OS) from time of progression on CT1. Results We identified 73 patients who received palliative chemotherapy for ABC. Twenty-five patients (34%) received two or more lines of chemotherapy. Patients with a preserved performance status on progression on first-line chemotherapy (CT1) were more likely to receive second-line chemotherapy (CT2) (P < 0.001). Disease control rate with CT2 was 36%, and mean progression-free survival was 3.2 months (95% confidence interval 1.5–4.9 months). The following variables were significant in the univariate analysis of OS from time of progression on CT1: lines of chemotherapy (P = 0.0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at progression on CT1 (P < 0.0001) and disease control with CT1 (P = 0.027). Lines of chemotherapy received and performance status remained significant in the multivariate analysis for OS from progression on CT1. Conclusion Second-line chemotherapy is feasible in a subset of patients with ABC. Even after accounting for confounding variables, CT2 appears to increase OS in ABC, although we are unable to exclude other unmeasured factors such as tumor biology. These findings warrant further evaluation with prospective trials.

Purpose We evaluated the activity of regorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, in advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. Patients and Methods We conducted an international (Australia and New Zealand, South Korea, and Canada) randomized phase II trial in which patients were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio and stratified by lines of prior chemotherapy for advanced disease (one v two) and region. Eligible patients received best supportive care plus regorafenib 160 mg or matching placebo orally on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle until disease progression or prohibitive adverse events occurred. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Final analysis included data to December 31, 2014. Results A total of 152 patients were randomly assigned from November 7, 2012, to February 25, 2014, yielding 147 evaluable patients (regorafenib, n = 97; placebo, n = 50). Baseline characteristics were balanced. Median PFS significantly differed between groups (regorafenib, 2.6 months; 95% CI, 1.8 to 3.1 and placebo, 0.9 months; 95% CI, 0.9 to 0.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.59; P < .001). The effect was greater in South Korea than in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada combined (HR, 0.12 v 0.61; interaction P < .001) but consistent across age, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, primary site, lines of chemotherapy, peritoneal metastasis presence, number of metastatic sites, and plasma vascular endothelial growth factor A. A survival trend in favor of regorafenib was seen (median, 5.8 months; 95% CI, 4.4 to 6.8 v 4.5 months; 95% CI, 3.4 to 5.2; HR, 0.74; P = .147). Twenty-nine patients assigned to placebo received open-label regorafenib after disease progression. Regorafenib toxicity was similar to that previously reported. Conclusion In this phase II trial, regorafenib was effective in prolonging PFS in refractory advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. Regional differences were found, but regorafenib was effective in both regional groups. A phase III trial is planned.

Background: This randomised phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of panitumumab added to docetaxel-based chemotherapy in advanced oesophagogastric cancer. Methods: Patients with metastatic or locally recurrent cancer of the oesophagus, oesophagogastric junction or stomach received docetaxel and a fluoropyrimidine with or without panitumumab for 8 cycles or until progression. The primary end point was response rate (RECIST1.1). We planned to enrol 100 patients, with 50% expected response rate for combination therapy. Results: A total of 77 patients were enrolled. A safety alert from the REAL3 trial prompted a review of data that found no evidence of adverse outcomes associated with panitumumab but questionable efficacy, and new enrolment was ceased. Enrolled patients were treated according to protocol. Response rates were 49% (95% CI 34–64%) in the chemotherapy arm and 58% (95% CI 42–72%) in the combination arm. Common grade 3 and 4 toxicities included infection, anorexia, vomiting, diarrhoea and fatigue. At 23.7 months of median follow-up, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months vs 6.0 months and median overall survival was 11.7 months vs 10.0 months in the chemotherapy arm and the combination arm, respectively. Conclusions: Adding panitumumab to docetaxel-based chemotherapy for advanced oesophagogastric cancer did not improve efficacy and increased toxicities.

4608 Background: CAPTEM is an accepted regimen for patients (pts) with advanced pNETs. Single agent 177Lu-Octreotate PRRT is now a standard of care for progressive WHO Grade (G) 1/2 mNETs. High activity was seen with LuTate/CAPTEM in a single arm Phase I/II trial. This study was undertaken to determine the relative activity of adding CAPTEM to LuTate PRRT in pts with mNETs and pNETs. Methods: Non-comparative randomised open label parallel group phase II trial with 2:1 randomisation to PRRT/CAPTEM (experimental arm) vs. PRRT (mNETs control) and CAPTEM (pNETS control). PRRT/CAPTEM: 7.8GBq LuTate day(D) 10, 8 weekly (wkly) x 4, with b.i.d. oral CAP 750mg/m2 D1-14 & TEM 75mg/m2D10-14, 8 wkly x 4; PRRT: 8 wkly x 4; CAPTEM 8 wkly x 4. Primary endpoint: Progression free survival (PFS). mNETS- at 15 months (mo) assuming 15mo PFS 66.4% in control arm, aiming for PFS ³ 80%; pNETS- at 12mo assuming 12mo PFS 60% in control arm, aiming for PFS ³ 75%. Secondary endpoints: Objective tumour response rate (complete or partial) (OTRR), clinical benefit rate (OTRR, stable disease) (CBR), toxicity, quality of life. Results: 75 pts enrolled (Dec 2015 – Nov 2018): mNETs 33 PRRT/CAPTEM and 14 PRRT; pNETS 19 PRRT/CAPTEM and 9 CAPTEM. mNETS: Median follow-up 35mo; 15mo PFS was 90% (95% CI: 73-97%) v 92% (95% CI: 57-99%); OTRR 31% vs 15%; and CBR 97% vs 92% for PRRT/CAPTEM v PRRT respectively. Treatment related adverse events (AEs): 24/32 PRRT/CAPTEM pts had at least one G3 event (75%) vs 5/13 (38%, PRRT); and 4/32 pts at least one G4 event (13%) v 1/13 (8%) respectively, mostly haematologic (haem). Only one patient failed to complete therapy (PRRT/CAPTEM). pNETS: Median follow-up 34mo; 12mo PFS was 76% (95% CI: 48-90%) v 67% (95% CI: 28-88%); OTRR 68% vs 33%; and CBR 100% vs 100% for PRRT/CAPTEM v CAPTEM respectively. Treatment related AEs: 5/18 PRRT/CAPTEM pts had at least one G3 event (28%) vs 3/9 (33%) CAPTEM; 3/18 pts at least one G4 event (17%) v 1/9 (11%) respectively. Conclusions: CAPTEM/PRRT is active, meeting its target landmark PFS for CAPTEM/PRRT (12mo pNETs; 15mo mNETs) with numerically greater OTRR in both pNETs and mNETs, but with more haem toxicity in mNETs. As activity was high in both control arms longer follow up is required to determine if the relative activity of PRRT/CAPTEM is sufficient to warrant Phase III evaluation. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12615000909527 .

3073 Background: Data on the utility of a PARP inhibitor in combination with a checkpoint inhibitor remain limited, particularly in the histology agnostic setting with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). This study evaluated the clinical activity of the combination of olaparib and durvalumab with the primary study endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months (PFS6m). Methods: This was a phase II, single-arm, signal-seeking study of the MoST program. Patients were recruited into two cohorts based on HRD genes, agnostic to histology: (1) BRCA 1/2 deficient tumours, excluding breast, prostate, ovarian cancers, and (2) other HRD related genes. Molecular testing was performed using in-house and commercial panels on archival tumour tissue centrally adjudicated by a molecular tumour board. All patients were treated with olaparib 300mg bid for 1 month, followed by combination with durvalumab 1500mg q4 weekly for 13 cycles. Olaparib treatment was then continued until disease progression. Results: Between Nov 2017-Feb 2019, 48 patients were enrolled (16 to BRCA 1/2 cohort 1 and 32 to HRD related genes cohort 2). Most common tumour sites were bone/soft tissue (15%, N=7), pancreas (13%, N=6) and stomach (8%, N=4). Overall best response in cohort 1 was PR (25%, N=4) and SD 4 (25%, N=4), and cohort 2 was PR (6%, N=2) and SD (56%, N=18). Median PFS was 3.65m (Cohort 1) and 3.56m (Cohort 2) respectively. PFS6m was 35% (Cohort 1) and 38% (Cohort 2) respectively. PDL1 status was not predictive of olaparib and durvalumab benefit. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were anemia (11%%, N=4), abdominal pain (9%, N=3), increased lipase (9%,N=3), increased amylase (9%, N=3), dyspnea (6%, N=2), Hyperglycemia dyspnea (6%, N=2), Pancreatitis dyspnea (6%, N=2) and hematuria (6%, N=2). Conclusions: Olaparib and durvalumab show promising activity in a histology agnostic setting, particularly in BRCA deficient tumours. Further research is needed to identify biomarkers that correlate with treatment benefit. Results from longer clinical follow-up and additional biomarker analyses will be presented. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12617001000392 .

Objectives Given a lack of universally-accepted standard-of-care treatment for patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC), study objectives were to assess treatment utilization and survival outcomes for R/M HNSCC in the real-world setting. Materials and methods A multi-site retrospective chart review was conducted in Europe (Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain), Asia Pacific (Australia, South Korea, Taiwan), and Latin/North America (Brazil and Canada) to identify patients who initiated first-line systemic therapy for R/M HNSCC between January 2011 and December 2013. Patients were followed through December 2015 to collect clinical characteristics, treatment and survival data. Results Among 733 R/M HNSCC patients across 71 sites, median age was 60 years (inter-quartile range 54–67), 84% male, and 70% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1; 32% had oral cavity and 30% oropharyngeal cancers. The most common first-line regimen across all countries consisted of platinum-based combinations (73%), including platinum + 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (26%), cetuximab + platinum ± 5-FU (22%), or taxane + platinum ± 5-FU (16%). However, use of different platinum-based combinations varied substantially; administration of cetuximab + platinum ± 5-FU was frequent in Italy (81%), Germany (46%) and Spain (38%), whereas use in other countries was limited. Median follow-up was 22.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.5–24.6 months). Median real-world overall survival was only 8.0 months (95% CI: 7.0–8.0), with one-year survival reaching only 30.9% (95% CI: 27.5–34.3). Conclusion Systemic therapies used in clinical practice for patients with R/M HNSCC vary substantially across countries. Prognosis remains poor in this patient population, highlighting the need for newer, more efficacious treatments.

TPS271 Background: Pan added to combination chemotherapy is established first-line therapy for RAS and BRAF wild type mCRC. Elderly patients are not well represented in clinical trials and may be more suited to treatment protocols with lower toxicity risks; FU plus bevacizumab (bev) is commonly used. Treatment related efficacy, toxicity, impact on quality of life and other outcomes of pan based regimens in an elderly population have not been well studied. Methods: A prospective non-comparative randomized phase 2 study. Australian Clinical Trials Registry Number: ACTRN 12618000233224. Main inclusion criteria include: Untreated patients aged 70 years or older; RAS and BRAF wild type; ECOG performance 0-2. Randomisation 1:1, stratified by primary tumour side, performance status, number of metastatic sites; to pan 6mg/kg 2 weekly or panitumumab plus FU 400 mg/m² bolus; leucovorin 200mg/m²; FU 2400mg/m² 48 hour infusion 2 weekly. Primary endpoint is 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). Sample size is 80 patients based on expected 6-month PFS rate of 73% with FU and bev. Using the method of Metha-Cain, if 24 or more patients are progression free at 6 months, the one sided 95% confidence interval includes 73% and we declare similar activity. Secondary endpoints include overall survival; toxicity and overall treatment utility, a composite measure of treatment benefit based on radiology, clinical progress, toxicity and patient reflection of the impact of treatment on their daily lives. Patients undergo a comprehensive health assessment at baseline and limited health assessment at 4 months. Physical activity trackers are worn for 2 weeks at treatment commencement and again at week 16. Tumour tissue and blood samples (at baseline, cycle 3 day 1 and at 24 weeks) will be collected for translational research. First site opened in June 2018. Twelve patients have been recruited to date from 9 sites in Australasia. Eighteen sites were open as at September 2019. Clinical trial information: 12618000233224.

604 Background: Single agent 177Lu-octreotate peptide receptor radionuclide therapy is now a standard of care for progressive mNETS. High activity was seen with LuTate and concurrent CAPTEM chemotherapy in a single arm Phase I/II trial. This study was undertaken to determine the relative activity of adding CAPTEM to LuTate PRRT in patients with mNETs. Methods: Non-comparative randomised open label phase II trial of PRRT +/- CAPTEM in patients with mNETs, with 2:1 randomisation: PRRT /CAPTEM (experimental arm) vs. PRRT (control). PRRT /CAPTEM: 7.8GBq LuTate day(D) 10, 8 weekly (wkly) x 4, with b.i.d. oral CAP 750mg/m2 D1-14 & TEM 75mg/m2 D10-14, 8 wkly x 4, vs. PRRT 8 wkly x 4. Primary endpoint: progression free survival (PFS) at 15 months assuming 15 month PFS of 66.4% in the control arm, aiming for PFS rate > 80%; secondary endpoints: objective tumour response rate (complete or partial response) (OTRR), clinical benefit rate (complete or partial response, stable disease) (CBR), toxicity, and QOL. Results: 47 patients enrolled (Dec 2015 - Feb 2018): 33 PRRT/CAPTEM and 14 PRRT. Two patients withdrew prior to treatment. Patient characteristics were balanced except gender (female 58% vs. 14%). Two patients received 2 prior systemic regimens. After a median follow-up of 32 months, the 15 month PFS was 90% (95% CI: 73-97%) v 92% (95% CI: 57-99%); OTRR 25% vs 15%; and CBR 97% vs 92% for PRRT/CAPTEM v PRRT respectively. For treatment related adverse events 22/32 CAPTEM patients experienced one Grade 3 event (69%) vs 5/13 (38%, PRRT); 4/32 pts experienced one Grade 4 event (13%) v 1/13 (8%) respectively. Only one patient failed to complete therapy due to toxicity (PRRT/CAPTEM). Conclusions: This initial planned analysis demonstrates similarly high 15 month PFS for CAPTEM/PRRT relative to PRRT alone. OTRR is numerically higher but at the cost of greater toxicity. Longer follow up is required to determine if the activity of PRRT/CAPTEM is sufficient to warrant Phase III evaluation. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12615000909527.

OBJECTIVE: A subset of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) may benefit from antiestrogen therapy with higher response rates reported in tumors that are strongly estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (ER⁺). PARAGON is a basket trial that incorporates 7 phase 2 trials investigating the activity of anastrozole in patients with ER⁺ and/or progesterone receptor (PR)-positive (PR⁺) recurrent/metastatic gynecological cancers. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with ER⁺ and/or PR⁺ ROC, who were asymptomatic and had cancer antigen 125 (CA125) progression after response to first line chemotherapy, where chemotherapy was not clinically indicated. Patients received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled (52 evaluable). Clinical benefit at three months (primary endpoint) was observed in 18 patients (34.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]=23%-48%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.7 months (95% CI=2.1-3.1). The median duration of clinical benefit was 6.5 months (95% CI=2.8-11.7). Most patients progressed within 6 months of starting anastrozole but 12 (22%) continued treatment for longer than 6 months. Anastrozole was well tolerated. In the exploratory analysis, ER histoscores and the intensity of ER staining did not correlate with clinical benefit rate or PFS. CONCLUSION: A subset of asymptomatic patients with ER⁺ and/or PR⁺ ROC and CA125 progression had durable clinical benefit on anastrozole, with acceptable toxicity. Anastrozole may delay symptomatic progression and the time to subsequent chemotherapy. The future challenge is to identify the subset of patients most likely to benefit from an aromatase inhibitor and whether the clinical benefit could be increased by the addition of other agents. ispartof: JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY vol:30 issue:5 ispartof: location:Korea (South) status: published

Background: \ud Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease.\ud \ud Objectives: \ud To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life.\ud \ud Search methods: \ud We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017.\ud \ud Selection criteria: \ud All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis: \ud Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study.\ud \ud Main results: \ud We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.\ud \ud We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.\ud \ud Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.\ud \ud Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.\ud \ud When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.\ud \ud We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone.\ud \ud Authors' conclusions: \ud Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.

Background Precision medicine aims to link molecular targets in tumours with corresponding therapies, particularly for patients with rare cancers. Innovative approaches are needed to translate molecular opportunities into clinical care. The Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutics (MoST) program employs a molecular screening platform to identify molecular changes of therapeutic relevance (actionable changes) and a master protocol for multiple, parallel signal-seeking clinical substudies, focused on therapies for patients with rare and neglected cancers. Methods and analysis: Archival pathology laboratory samples from patients with treatment-refractory advanced solid cancer of any histologic type undergo molecular tumour profiling. Following review by a Molecular Tumour Board, eligible patients are offered treatment in therapeutic substudies. This novel master protocol allows expedited addition of individual substudies; at least 12 open label, single arm, signal-seeking substudies during the initial 4 years of MoST are planned. The primary objectives are to identify signals of efficacy for developing biomarker-driven therapies and biomarkers that more accurately predict response to therapy, as well as to evaluate the MoST design. Ethics approval: The program has been approved by the St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (reference, HREC/16/SVH/23). Dissemination of results: A report summarising and interpreting collected study data will be published. Our findings will be presented at national and international conferences and scientific meetings, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616000908437 (8 July 2016).

Background OUTBACK is testing the addition of 4 cycles of adjuvant carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy (chemo) after definitive chemoradiation in locally advanced cervix cancer. We aimed to determine characteristics associated with not starting randomly assigned adjuvant chemo. Methods We assessed associations between not starting assigned adjuvant chemo and baseline characteristics of: age; race; country; smoking status; ECOG; BMI; FIGO stage; node involvement; and participants’ self-rated physical, role, emotional, cognitive, social functional status, and financial difficulties (by EORTC QLQ-C30). We also assessed for associations with completion of chemoradiation and grade 3-4 toxicities during chemoradiation. Odds ratios (OR), p-values, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results Adjuvant chemo was not started in 105 of 463 (23%) women randomly assigned to receive it. Predictors of not starting adjuvant chemo with a p-value of /= 60, even after accounting for other factors. Conclusions Adjuvant chemo was less likely to be started in non-Caucasian women, those aged >/= 60, and those with poor self-rated physical function. Further research is required to understand the causes, implications, and methods for mitigating these disparities. Clinical trial identification ACTRN12610000732088. Legal entity responsible for the study University of Sydney. Funding National Health and Medical Research Council. In addition, Hospira provided paclitaxel treatment for Australian and New Zealand patients in the study. Disclosure L. Mileshkin: Research grant / Funding (self), Provided supply of Paclitaxel for trial patients in Australia and New Zealand: Hospira; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Beigene; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche. K.N. Moore: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Clovis; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Immunogen; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Tesaro; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Aravive; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): OncoMed; Advisory / Consultancy: Samumed; Advisory / Consultancy: Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Genentech/Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen; Advisory / Consultancy: Cue; Research grant / Funding (self): Lilly; Research grant / Funding (self): PTC Therapeutics; Research grant / Funding (institution): Regeneron; Research grant / Funding (institution): Agenus. K. Sjoquist: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Servier; Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Amgen; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Ipsen; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (institution): Astellas; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bionomics; Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Research grant / Funding (institution): Medivation; Research grant / Funding (institution): Sanofi; Research grant / Funding (institution): Tilray. W. Small: Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Zeiss; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck. S. Thompson: Honoraria (self): Mevion Medical Systems. W. Huh: Honoraria (self): Antiva; Advisory / Consultancy: Inovio. P.A. Disilvestro: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Tesaro; Research grant / Funding (institution): Immunogen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Genentech; Research grant / Funding (institution): AbbVie; Research grant / Funding (institution): Syros; Research grant / Funding (institution): Janssen. D. Rischin: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Uncompensated: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Uncompensated: Regeneron; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Uncompensated: GSK; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Uncompensated: BMS; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche. M.R. Stockler: Research grant / Funding (institution): Astellas; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bionomics; Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Research grant / Funding (institution): Medivation; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Sanofi; Research grant / Funding (institution): Tilray. B.J. Monk: Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie; Advisory / Consultancy: Advaxis; Advisory / Consultancy: Agenus; Advisory / Consultancy: Amgen; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: ChemoCare; Advisory / Consultancy: ChemoID; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Clovis; Advisory / Consultancy: Conjupro; Advisory / Consultancy: Esaias; Advisory / Consultancy: Geistlich; Advisory / Consultancy: Genmab; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunogen; Advisory / Consultancy: Immunomedics; Advisory / Consultancy: Incyte; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Myriad; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Roche/Genentech; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Tesaro. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Table: 1052P . Characteristic Value Adjuvant chemo not started/ assigned: N (%) Univariable OR (95% CI) Univariable p-value Multivariable OR (95% CI) Multivariable p-value Age >/= 60 24/70 (34%) 81 / 393 (21%) 2.01 (1.2-3.5) 0.01 2.30 (1.10-4.81) 0.026 Race Other White/Caucasian 43/127 (34%) 62/336 (18%) 2.26 (1.4–3.6) 0.0005 2.11 (1.13-3.96) 0.019 Nodes involved Yes No/unknown 42/225 (19%) 63/238 (26%) 0.64 (0.4–0.99) 0.046 0.75 (0.42-1.35) 0.34 QLQ-C30 Physical Function Worst 33.37% Best 66.67% 5/11 (45%) 59/310 (19%) 3.55 (1.05–12.0) 0.04 3.66 (1.03-13) 0.045 Chemoradiation Not completed Completed 46/114 (40%) 59/349 (17%) 3.33 (2.01–5.3) 3.21 (1.75-5.88) 0.0002

Background:Estimating prognosis on the basis of clinicopathologic factors can inform clinical practice and improve risk stratification for clinical trials. We constructed prognostic nomograms for one-year overall survival and six-month progression-free survival in metastatic colorectal carcinoma by using the ARCAD database. Methods:Data from 22 674 patients in 26 randomized phase III clinical trials since 1997 were used to construct and validate Cox models, stratified by treatment arm within each study. Candidate variables included baseline age, sex, body mass index, performance status, colon vs rectal cancer, prior chemotherapy, number and location of metastatic sites, tumor mutation status (BRAF, KRAS), bilirubin, albumin, white blood cell count, hemoglobin, platelets, absolute neutrophil count, and derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio. Missing data (50% vs 50% vs

Background There is some evidence that a subset of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer may benefit from antiestrogen therapy. The Paragon study is a basket protocol that includes a series of phase 2 trials investigating the activity of anastrozole in patients with estrogen or progesterone receptor–positive recurrent gynecological cancers. We report the results of treatment in patients with platinum-resistant or -refractory recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods Postmenopausal women who had estrogen and/or progesterone receptor–positive platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory recurrent ovarian cancer and disease measurable by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 or GCIG (Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup) CA-125 criteria were eligible. Patients received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The study was prospectively registered (ACTRN12610000796088). Results There were 49 evaluable patients, and clinical benefit was observed in 13 (27%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16%–40%). There were no complete or partial RECIST version 1.1 responses. Clinical benefit was associated with higher global quality-of-life scores. Median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0–2.8 months). The median duration of clinical benefit was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.6–5.7 months). Most patients (83%) progressed within 6 months. Seven patients continued on treatment for longer than 6 months. Anastrozole was well tolerated in most patients. Subgroup analysis suggested greater clinical benefit in patients with tumors with estrogen-receptor histoscore of more than 200, but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions A subset of patients with estrogen- or progesterone-positive platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory recurrent epithelial ovarian cancers derives clinical benefit from anastrozole, with acceptable toxicity. The challenge remains how to identify them.

The INTEGRATE phase II multinational randomized controlled trial demonstrated the activity of regorafenib on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with refractory advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. We sought to evaluate whether these PFS gains had the potential to be offset by quality of life (QoL) impacts from treatment side effects and to thereby determine the appropriateness of continuing development to phase III. QoL was assessed in INTEGRATE at baseline and at each 4 weeks thereafter, until discontinuation of study treatment, using the QLQ-C30, STO22, and EQ-5D questionnaires. The patient disease and treatment assessment (PTDATA) form was also provided to English-speaking participants. Randomized groups were compared on the QLQ-C30, STO22, and EQ-5D scales using a repeated-measures model; the frequency of troublesome symptoms and side effects measured by the PTDATA form; and deterioration-free survival (DFS). The prognostic value of baseline QoL information was also evaluated. Of the 147 eligible randomized patients, 142 consented to participate in the QoL substudy, 136 completed a baseline QoL assessment, and 95 completed at least one post-baseline QoL assessment. The DFS rate was significantly improved with regorafenib, and there was no compelling statistical evidence that regorafenib had a broad negative effect across the spectrum of QoL indices evaluated. Fatigue, anxiety, appetite loss, and pain were among the issues most commonly reported for both randomized groups. Baseline levels of pain, appetite, constipation, and physical functioning were prognostic factors for survival. Regorafenib improved DFS without an excessively negative effect on QoL. Progressing development to the phase III setting is warranted.

In recent years the evolution of treatment options for gastric cancer has resulted in diverging management paradigms based on apparent variations in epidemiology, biology and clinical practice in the context of a different demographic as well. Differences in the timing of systemic therapy, extent of surgery and inclusion of radiotherapy are key questions in management of locally advanced gastric cancer. In more advanced/metastatic disease, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment, with new agents raising challenges around patient selection and integration into local treatment practices. Although cytotoxic agents have formed the backbone of systemic therapies for advanced/metastatic disease for many years [1], it is only recently that a survival advantage for second-line systemic therapy has been demonstrated [2–5]. Once a survival benefit in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy had been demonstrated for combinations of cytotoxics in the late 1990s [6–8], subsequent trials primarily built on this progress by substituting newer cytotoxic agents. Initial combinations saw 5-fluorouracil combined with either leucovorin and etoposide as used by Glimelius et al. [7], or methotrexate and an anthracycline (doxorubicin, epidoxorubicin) [9, 10]. As newer agents became available, they were subsequently incorporated into these regimens, some with more success than others. Platinum compounds established their place in initial therapy, firstly cisplatin [11], then oxaliplatin [12]. The utility of epirubicin remains controversial; it remains a component of European but not Asian or pan-American treatment protocols. Following evidence of activity in early-phase studies, the taxanes have been incorporated into treatment of gastric cancer. For fit patients, the addition of docetaxel to first-line cisplatin and 5-fluoruracil therapy improved overall survival compared with doublet therapy, and is considered a standard treatment [13]. Not unexpectedly, the triplet was associated with increased toxicity, and alternative schedules, including weekly docetaxel therapy have demonstrated reasonable activity with decreased haematological toxicities [14]. A decade after the utility of first-line systemic therapy was established, the oral fluoropyrimidines were introduced into the treatment paradigm for gastric cancer [4, 15]. Two large trials established the non-inferiority of capecitabine in comparison with 5-fluorouracil administered by continuous infusion when used in combination with either cisplatin or oxaliplatin. Another oral fluoropyrimidine, S-1, failed to demonstrate superior survival in Western countries (although the data in Asian countries are much more convincing), but was more tolerable than 5-fluorouracil administered by continuous infusion [16]. The current standard of care in first-line therapy revolves around platinum compound and fluoropyrimidine combinations, with the type of platinum compound (cisplatin, oxaliplatin) and fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil, capecitabine, S-1) dictated by regional experience and availability as well as the toxicity profile and individual patient and clinical preference. This comment refers to the article available at doi:10.1007/s10120-014-0351-5.

BackgroundThe aim of chemotherapy in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer is palliation. Patients’ experience of symptoms is not well documented, and the impact of treatment on symptoms has not been evaluated in clinical trials. We report symptom burden and treatment outcomes from stage 1 of the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) Symptom Benefit Study.MethodsOne hundred twenty-six patients receiving palliative chemotherapy completed 5 validated health-related quality-of-life questionnaires before starting treatment and before each cycle. They also reported their expected and perceived benefits from treatment. Physicians documented the reasons for treatment and adverse events including symptoms at baseline and estimated the number of cycles of treatment that patients would receive.ResultsPalliation was the major reason for chemotherapy. At baseline, all patients were symptomatic (almost 70% had ≥9 symptoms). Patients had high expectation of benefit from treatment. Only 41% of patients received the predicted number of cycles with most stopping early (≤2 cycles) due to progression, death, or adverse effects. Treatment was associated with significant toxicity, with discordance between patient report and physician grading. Although RECIST response rates were low (8.5%), 40% of the patients were reported to have had a clinical benefit and almost 50% of symptomatic patients also reported symptom improvement.ConclusionsPatients had a complex array of symptoms and significant symptom burden, which was commonly the reason for treatment. Although chemotherapy improved symptoms in about half of the patients, many did not benefit and progressed rapidly. Our findings support research into the use of patient reported outcome measures to document symptoms, adverse events, and subjective benefit, both in clinical trials and in clinical practice, in this patient population. Our findings highlight the need to develop prognostic models to better select patients for treatment, and this is an aim of stage 2 of the GCIG Symptom Benefit Study.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the optimal patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for assessing symptom benefit in trials of palliative chemotherapy for women with symptomatic ovarian cancer.MethodsCandidate PROMs were EORTC QLQ-C30 plus ovarian-specific QLQ-OV28, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O), FACT Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and gynecologic cancer-specific Symptom Representation Questionnaire. Predefined optimality criteria were inclusion of all symptoms necessary for the specified purpose, recall period covering typical length of palliative chemotherapy, numerical item rating scales, and all necessary symptoms included in a single symptom index. Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied to data from stage 1 of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Symptom Benefit Study to determine the set of necessary symptoms and to objectively assess candidate PROMs against the optimality criteria.ResultsTen necessary symptoms were identified: pain, fatigue, abdominal bloating/discomfort, sleep disturbance, bowel disturbance, nausea and vomiting, shortness of breath, poor appetite, urinary symptoms, and weight changes. Although QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OV28 together cover all these symptoms, they split them into numerous scales, dissipating potential symptom-benefit signal. Conversely, FACT-O does not cover all necessary symptoms and contains many other HRQoL-related items and treatment side effects, diluting potential symptom-benefit signal when summed into scales. Item response scales and composite scoring of all candidate PROMs were suboptimal to our specific purpose. We therefore developed a new PROM, the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) concerns, to provide optimal measurement for the specified purpose.ConclusionsThis article documents the development of the MOST, a new PROM designed to assess patient-reported benefits and burden as end points in clinical trials of palliative chemotherapy for women with symptomatic ovarian cancer. The validity, reliability, and statistical efficiency of the MOST, relative to the best candidate scales of existing PROMs, will be assessed in the stage 2 of Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Symptom Benefit Study.

Background AGOC has a poor prognosis with limited benefits from treatments following failure of chemotherapy (CT). Regorafenib (BAY 73-4506)(REG) is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor targeting kinases involved in angiogenesis (VEGFR1-3, TIE-2), tumor microenvironment (PDGFR-β, FGFR), and oncogenesis (RAF, RET and KIT). INTEGRATE (phase 2) demonstrated REG effectiveness in prolonging PFS in AGOC pts, with a positive OS trend and less toxicity than other REG trials at the same doses. REG was effective across all regions/subgroups, with regional differences noted in magnitude of effect. INTEGRATE II (phase 3) will explore whether REG is effective in prolonging survival in all patients, and in the Asian sub-population Methods International randomised phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 2:1 (REG:placebo)(PBO) randomisation and stratification by tumour location, geographic region, and prior VEGF inhibitors. Histologically confirmed AGOC patients, with evaluable metastatic or locally advanced disease refractory to/relapsed following at least 2 lines of CT, will receive best supportive care plus 160mg REG or matched placebo orally on days 1-21 of each 28 day cycle until disease progression or prohibitive adverse events. Primary endpoint is OS. Secondary endpoints: PFS, response rate, quality of life, safety, identification of prognostic/predictive biomarkers for study endpoints, and REG PK across geographical regions. 350 patients (50% from Asia, with at least 50 patients to be recruited from Japan) randomized in a 2:1 ratio will provide 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) for OS of 0.67 with a 2-sided α of 0.05 assuming PBO median survival is 4.5 mos. The sample size accommodates an interim analysis undertaken once 2/3 of required events have occurred. Results 27 ANZ, 8 Canadian, 15 Korean, 5 Taiwanese, and 2 Japanese sites have been activated with 106 patients enrolled. Remaining Japanese/US sites expected to activate through Q1/Q2 2019.

3136 Background: Personalizing therapy will arguably have no greater impact than on patients (pts) with rare (< 6 per 100,000 population) or less common cancers (6-12/100,000). MoST combines a molecular screening platform and biomarker-driven treatments for pts with advanced cancer, with a particular focus on rare and less common cancers (RLC). Methods: Molecular screening was performed using in-house and commercial panels on archival tumor tissue. A Molecular Tumor Board by consensus reported on pathogenic variants with potential therapeutic actionability. Tiers of actionability were defined as: Tier 1–eligible for a MoST substudy; Tier 2–clinical evidence of efficacy in any cancer type, Tier 3—preclinical evidence. The clinical and molecular characteristics of the first 1,000 pts are presented here. Results: Pts were recruited from Sept 2016 to Dec 2018. A report was issued in 94% of cases in a median of 7.7 weeks from consent. In 6%, there was insufficient tissue. The median age at cancer diagnosis was 35 years (range 4-85 years), and 49% were male. Pts had a median of 2 lines of prior systemic therapy (0-11), and a median baseline ECOG performance status of 0 (range 0-3). 82% of pts had RLCs. A total of 2642 pathogenic variants were reported, of which 1144 (43%) were deemed therapeutically actionable. 651(57%) of actionable variants (AVs) occurred in RLC (Table). Most commonly, AVs were found in the cell cycle, homologous recombination repair (HR) and fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathways. 559(66%) of pts had at least one AV identified, 30% tier 1, 63% tier 2 and 6% tier 3, including 66% of RLC. In 30% of cases, a tumor mutational burden >11 mutations/ megabase was reported. Conclusions: Here we report a high frequency of AVs in RLC, providing a rational basis for assessing the potential of personalized therapy in a population with a historically unmet need for effective treatment. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12616000908437. [Table: see text]

Purpose. Chemotherapy for platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian cancer is motivated by the hope of benefit.Wesought to determine the relationships between: (a) trait hope, expectation of symptom benefit from chemotherapy, and anxiety and depression; (b) hope and perceived efficacy of chemotherapy; and (c) unfulfilled hope (where expectations for benefit are not fulfilled) and depression. Methods. Adult patients enrolled within stage 1 of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Symptom Benefit Study were included. Patient. Reported outcomes were collected from 126women with predominantly platinum-resistant ovarian cancer at baseline, prior to the first four treatment cycles (12-16 weeks), and four weeks after completing chemotherapy or at disease progression, whichever came first. Associations were assessed with Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r) and odds ratio. Results. Trait hope and expectation of symptom benefit from chemotherapy were weakly correlated with each other (r =0.25). Trait hope, but not expectation of symptom benefit, was negatively correlated with anxiety (r=-0.43) and depression (r=-0.50). The smaller the discrepancy between perceived and expected symptom benefit, the less likely the patient was to have scores indicative of depression (odds ratio: 0.68; 95% confidence interval: 0.49-0.96; p=.026). Conclusion. Trait hope and expectation of symptom benefit from chemotherapy appear to be distinct and independent of the aspects of quality of life and scores for depression. Hope did not appear to affect perceived efficacy of chemotherapy in alleviating symptoms, but women whose expectation of symptom benefit from chemotherapy was not fulfilled were more likelyto have scores indicative of depression. It may be preferable to encourage hope toward achievable goals rather than toward benefits from chemotherapy. © AlphaMed Press 2013.

BACKGROUND:Studies of anti-angiogenic agents (AAs), combined with chemotherapy (chemo) or as monotherapy in metastatic oesophago-gastric cancer (mOGC), have reported mixed outcomes. We undertook systematic review and meta-analysis to determine their overall benefits and harms. METHODS:Randomized controlled trials in mOGC were sought investigating the addition of AAs to standard therapy (best supportive care or chemo). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with secondary endpoints progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Estimates of treatment effect from individual trials were combined using standard techniques. Subgroup analyses were performed by line of therapy, region, age, performance status, histological type, number of metastatic sites, primary site, mechanism of action and HER2 status. RESULTS:Fifteen trials evaluating 3502 patients were included in quantitative analysis. The addition of AAs was associated with improved OS: HR 0·81 (95% CI 0·75-0·88, p = Grade 3: with OR 1·39 (95% CI 1·17-1·65). CONCLUSIONS:The addition of AAs to standard therapy in mOGC improves OS. Improved efficacy was only observed in 2nd- or 3rd-line setting and not in 1st-line setting. Consistent OS benefit was present across all geographical regions. This benefit is at the expense of increased overall toxicity.

The phase II TACTIC trial prospectively selected patients with KRAS wild-type advanced biliary tract cancer for first-line treatment with panitumumab and combination chemotherapy.Of 78 patients screened, 85 % had KRAS wild-type tumours and 48 were enrolled. Participants received cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on day 1 and day 8 of each 21-day cycle and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or request to discontinue. The primary endpoint was the clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 12 weeks (complete response, partial response, or stable disease). CBR of 70 % was considered to be of clinical interest. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, overall survival, CA19.9 response and safety.Thirty-four patients had a clinical benefit at 12 weeks, an actuarial rate of 80 % (95 % CI 65-89 %). 46 % had a complete or partial response. Median progression-free survival was 8.0 months (95 % CI 5.1-9.9) and median overall survival 11.9 months (95 % CI 7.4-15.8). Infection accounted for 27 % of the grade 3 or 4 toxicity, with rash (13 %), fatigue (13 %), and hypomagnesemia (10 %) among the more common grade 3 or 4 non-haematological toxicities.A marker-driven approach to patient selection was feasible in advanced biliary tract cancer in an Australian population. The combination of panitumumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin in KRAS wild-type cancers was generally well tolerated and showed promising clinical efficacy. Further exploration of anti-EGFR therapy in a more selected population is warranted.